This entry was posted by jbc on Saturday, September 22nd, 2007 at 2:22 pm and is filed under the_usa, the_world.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

21 Responses to “Scott Adams on Ahmadinejad”

Hm, some of Adams’ points about misinterpretations of Ahmadinejad’s words were interesting — I hadn’t heard that before. But I’d be interested in finding out where he got this analysis. I mean, was the “wipe Israel off the map” translation really that off-base? Wow. And to me it seems more likely that he chose the word “myth” to most effectively set off the outrage response — not to convey that the holocaust has been elevated to a level of having too much influence on policy (but not that it didn’t happen). I can’t say I’m convinced.

He said today that theres no reason to stop studying the Holocaust and look at different angles because thats what we do in physics and mathematics. To equate the nature of study of history and physics is intellectually dishonest and pretty typical of the average politician. Thats what he sounded like for most of entirety of his speech.

Right, that’s the impression I got. He’s playing all sides to his advantage, and he’s good at coming up with nonsensical arguments and answers that sound like reason on the surface. I’ve been kind of disappointed with the extent to which I’m hearing left-leaning people trying to defend the guy. Ahmadinejad = bad politician. Invading Iran = bad idea. Those two are not incompatible.

Perhaps defending the guy is what it looks like when deflecting all those attacks, but perhaps it is more like trying to ensure he is left standing to be assessed by fair criticism and accurate reporting, rather than the Republican reputation assassins at Fox etc. Does it matter all that much what he says anyway, isn’t the country basically a theocracy and he is the token secular mouthpiece?

You might be interested in what the token secular mouthpiece had to say on 60 minutes recently:

excerpt:

the last page of the interview transcript~~

(CBS) PELLEY: One last thing. So important for the American people to understand. When your airplane approaches Manhattan this week, you will look out the window and you will see that the World Trade Center is gone. Many Americans, Mr. President, to be frank, believe that you look out that window and you say to yourself, “Good. Somebody got ’em.” They believe our countries are enemies.

AHMADEINEJAD: Well, you shouldn’t speak on behalf of the American people. I can speak on behalf of the Iranian people, but you cannot speak on behalf of the American people. Why do you insist on doing that? Why do you not allow the American people to speak for themselves? Why? Let them speak for themselves. The people gathered around the White House a couple of days ago. They spoke whatever was in their hearts and minds. Are they not American citizens? Hundreds of thousands of people have rallied against the war. Are they not citizens? Our government at the time expressed its condemnation. We issued an official communiqué condemning that incident. How can you, in your mind, accuse and condemn others? Well, if an Iranian person for that matter had done the same thing, it would have been shameful, and it would not have been fair. So, again, this is not fair. Maybe this is your point of view or also perhaps your editor’s point of view. And you are saying that the American people are saying these things. The American people still don’t know who was behind the bombing of the Twin Towers. Many books in the U.S. have been written about the incident., and there are questions circling in your society. Once you go back, go to the streets, ask the local people who was behind this, what were the reason for that? And, again, I fail to see why you continually say “the American people.“ I have the latest surveys. Eighty percent of the American citizens say that the American government knew about the attack beforehand. They had information.

See that seems an entirely reasonable question to me. There is no accusation there, it’s just a very valid quesiton having to do with the prevailing American opinion, which has all relevance to the relationship of our countries. Admadinejad is talking a big game about harmony with America, but that doesn’t jive with his actions or with the opinion of Americans. The reporter is opening the door for him to explain to America why he is not a threat, but he won’t even go that far. Read that response. First he rejects the reporter’s right to summarize American opinion, then launches into a bunch of unrelated stuff that will resonate with various anti-war groups in the US — asserting their right to protest the war, tacitly supporting 9/11 conspiracy theories (sigh), and then asserting his *own* summary of American opinion that is both unrelated and completely untrue. Just because he says some occasional true things doesn’t make him trusthworthy or admirable. Same goes for Hugo Chavez.

This guy is building nuclear weapons, is sowing discontent in the region to gather more power for himself, and presides over a government that kills and censors. I think all of those things justify very hard and direct questions in an interview, and that’s exactly what the reporter gave him.

And please don’t go on about how “why don’t they ask questions like this of Bush?” I agree, they should, but that’s because our own officials should be held to a higher standard. What exactly would you have asked Ahmadinejad?

I haven’t had time to read the transcript yet but I think there was a question that went something like “we understand people have been executed for being homosexual” and his answer was “we have no homosexual problem in Iraq”. Not if you kill them all. We wouldn’t have a problem with Democrats or rednecks or NASCAR or Cub fans if we killed them all. The fact that he even considers homosexuals a “problem” is a problem. What I find more disturbing is that I understand he is more of a figurehead for the religious leaders than anything anyway so ousting him one way or another will accomplish little.

I haven’t had time to read the transcript yet but I think there was a question that went something like…

and then yadayada

Typical, lots of time for shcb to express his opinions on his (WRONG) speculations about what he thinks someone might have said, but no time to take a few minutes to actually read or learn anything about what they said. That is the epitome of “foolishness” of which he is so quick to accuse others.

What was asked was a question about the Iranian gov’t putting homosexuals to death. As in do they. Ahmadinejad then went on a lengthy response about how they execute criminal drug dealers. He also spoke about how free Iran is. In fact, in Iran women are so free and men respect them so much, that they’re relieved of a lot of the legal responsibilities men are forced to burden.

The moderator then informed him that he didn’t answer the question about homosexuals being put to death.

His response was ‘We do not have homosexuals like you do here and in Europe.’ which I personally thought was a little creepy.

One thing to throw this back on track. After reading Scott Adams editorial and watching Ahmadinejad’s speech live I can say I have one major problem with Mr. Adam’s writing on the subject. Adams made what I feel is a grave mistake in assuming that Ahmadinejad had sincere intentions.

After watching his speech live I feel that the obvious conclusion is that the man is just another politician. He used the same tired rhetorical tricks we’ve all heard our own elected officials use: answering the questions he’d like to answer rather than the ones asked, contradicting his own points when it serves his immediate interest, resorting to the tired ‘Why don’t you ask…?’ etc.

The whole thing was in a nutshell, bullshit. Bullshit that we’ve all heard before in the domestic variety.

Exactly. Ahmadinejad spouts a couple lines about freedom and how Bush is prosecuting a war against the will of his people and suddenly we believe he’s our friend, that everything he says is true, and that we should respect him even though the evidence is pretty clear that he’s a garden variety lying, murderous bastard?

ymatt,
I don’t really have any issue with your posts, but perhaps some clarification (or educating words for me) as to what evidence you believe makes it “clear that he’s a garden variety lying, murderous bastard?” I just haven’t been paying attention to whether or not there is any good info on him, just don’t point me to any Bush speeches okay?

Just a quick dig at you guys, he sounded like a DEMOCRAT politician, I didn’t hear anything about cutting taxes for the rich, or expanding the corporate welfare state, but I have heard he was encouraged by the 2006 elections, I’m guessing he would sign a petition asking for Bush’s resignation. (just a little joke Knarly, you don’t have to cut and paste 20 pages or pick apart every word)

It is good to see you guys catching a glimpse of the dark side of our opponents in this war. But remember Ahmadinejad isn’t the real evil here, he is just a bad politician, listen to his responses, he was all but reading prepared remarks no matter what the question was. In my opinion, he was been given marching orders and is not allowed to venture far from them. We see the same thing here in our politicians but I think in most cases they give a stock answer no matter what the question because they really don’t know much about the subject, or they are afraid to give up even the smallest of points to their opponents, both bad form but no evil intent. I think it is more sinister in Iran.

He never said they don’t execute homosexuals did he? I think that answers your question Knarly

That pretty well sums up my opinion on it. He prisides over a regime that is responsible for significant domestic abuses, and he cleverly diverted attention from that by rhetorical tricks and by playing to anti-Bush sympathies. Taking him at his word is foolish.

As to his bastardliness, I think it’s mostly a matter of public international record with respect to pursecution of various groups, and I think the series of interviews recently has demonstrated his willingness (and skill) to blatantly lie. Note however that I do not believe that bastardly leaders constitutes a reason for attacking a nation, nor even attempting to “isolate” it, whatever that means. We have to win the battle agianst him on his own terms — by not allowing him the luxury of painting us as the bad guys.

To compare a murderous nut job like Ahmadinejad to a Democrat is sort of insulting. I mean, if I wanted to, I could list a lot of attributes and things he has said that are more in line with Conservative thinking, but I won’t.

Because to compare ANYONE who values freedom, democracy, human rights and justice for all to a weirdo like Ahmadinejad is just stupid. It’s just like I don’t agree with the Bush-Hitler comparison. As much as I despise Bush and almost everything he does, I wouldn’t go that far.

But I do understand the political mood in your country right now, and I guess that’s why you would insert a partisan comment like that into this discussion. It’s too bad Bush and his strategists have pitted everyone so aggressively against each other. I think they were employing the “divide and conquer” strategy. The “divide” part definitely worked!

And to put this into some sort of context for you, what the majority of the West feels about Ahmadinejad is equivalent to what the majority of the world (and apparently the US, too) think about Bush. I just don’t want you to start demonizing the entire Iranian population because as a matter of fact, Ahmadinejad’s approvals ratings in Iran are about the same as Bush’s in America. He is however regarded much higher by the rest of the East, mostly due to his willingness to stand up to “The Great Satan”.

That is why I said it was a joke, you can zing me with a couple redneck or republican jokes sometime in the future and we’ll call it even, just let me know when you are calling in this marker, because I keep track of these things you know.

I think if you go back in history these discussions have always been heated, the internet and the 24 hour news cycle may tend to make it seem more intense, but I don’t think things have changed that much. In some ways these discussions make things better. In times past I would not have been able to discuss these matters with a couple guys from Canada, one from Texas, another in SF and a crotchety old fart with a dented head in the south. Sorry TV, North Carolina? And I the puppet master control everything from my central location in Brighton Colorado. (Joke alert) don’t write your congressmen gentlemen.

I am curious though, I wonder how much of the hatred of America is based on false information. I say this because on the flight back from Holland a couple weeks ago I was sitting next to a very nice and intelligent Dutch lad maybe first year college age. He made a couple comments that I was a little disturbed by. He said that in his economics class they had taught them that America has a flat 10% tax rate, that we do not have a progressive tax structure. He also said “and what is it with this law that allows a 12 year old to purchase any gun they wish?” I informed him that to my knowledge there is no state that will allow a child that young to purchase any gun and that all or most states require you to be 21 for a handgun. He said he had heard that on the news. Now maybe he was pulling my leg to see my reaction, he had misunderstood the news and his teacher, I don’t know, and this is sample size of one survey. Food for thought, way off subject, but that never stopped me before.